Techs

@Krieghund:

You make some good points, Squirecam.  However, at this point I must return to the idea that speculation about game balance is purely theoretical at this stage.  I would also like to point out that my posts concerning the Heavy Bombers tech in this thread are purely my own opinions and should in no way be considered “official”.

In many instances, yes. Not this one.

I will again repeat what I said the second the article on tech came out on the old AH forums. AAR OOB HB were overpowered. You obviously agree with that opinion.

Yet the game did not have to have been released for both you and I to recognize this mistake.

I knew it before I played. So did you.

Just like I know it now. I have played A&A for 20+. I have a pretty good idea on what rules are overpowering and what isnt. And that experience has taught me HB are overpowered in the hands of USA if not given the LHTR treatment.

@Craig:

The HBs as listed borders (if not actually goes back over the edge) on gamebreaking.  That is not the HBs that I signed off on.

Then we have 2 options.

Introduce LHTR HB rules for AAAv (and limit the amount of IPC that can be bombed), or have a CAP rule.

Either will suffice.

Time for a tidbit of information:

Mechanized infantry- tanks may now carry 1 inf each 2 areas.

This tech is absolutely correct.  Each infantry that is matched up with a tank can move two spaces along with that tank.

So LHTR has been ignored. Interesting, a set of rule developed with a common effort by players, tournament organizers and Larry Harris ignored…

Cui prodest? Who gain from this?

@Craig:

@squirecam:

@Craig:

The HBs as listed borders (if not actually goes back over the edge) on gamebreaking.  That is not the HBs that I signed off on.

Then we have 2 options.

Introduce LHTR HB rules for AAAv (and limit the amount of IPC that can be bombed), or have a CAP rule.

Either will suffice.

This is why I fought so hard during the process, so that we wouldn’t have to do this now. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

After the Revised OotB debacle, the development of the LHTR was a template for how it should be done.  As such, it was the basis for moving forward.

It was changed/ignored by those who think they know better. :roll:

Now they will reap what they have sown.  :-(

Craig

Well, we can either fix it, or let it remain unfixed. Which would you prefer?

Personally, I’d rather things get fixed. So if a new LHTR is needed, so be it.

Besides, with all due respect, playtest groups were not going to find/fix everything. Once the game got out to the public, there would be tweaks needed based upon things playtesters never saw. There was always going to be a need for LHTR AAAv. It just will be “bigger” now. :-D

CAP is way overpowered IMO. You have to come big with escorts and Bombers to do damage worthwhile. Most likely you are going to lose more ipcs than you would take away during a SBR.

With CAP you won’t be bombing Germany if you are bringing 2 fighters and 1 bomber vs 2 fighters and AA gun, that’s suicide. CAP is worst rule out there. I consider the AA gun as AA gun + fighters on patrol. 1/6 chance to shoot down a plane is quite high already.

Now you got Germany able to only take 20ipc of damage each turn….this lessens the affect of HB and you got your own tech that counters HB. I don’t see a problem.

I think the first thing we should do is stop acting like the US already has Heavy Bombers or that it’s bombers are so numerous as to strain the supply of chips.

Everyone has to agree that Germany will be purchasing at least 1 more IC. And that IC, while small, will most likely be buried enough as to be covered by multiple AA’s, roughly making it unbombable (is that a word?). This means that even during the heaviest of bombing campaigns, Germany will be able to produce units and/or have the option of not fully rebuilding its bombed industrial capacity every turn.

Also, the US generally doesn’t have the opportunity to expand it’s income very much so 10 IPC’s per turn is a significant amount of income to be investing in tech and with the randomness of acquiring techs, heavy bombers is no guarantee. And purchasing a few bombers in the hopes that you do roll HB early is not only more of a drain but also is simply nothing more than gambling and the house usually wins against gamblers. Even at reduced cost, bombing raids without HB or Radar are only a 5 or 6 IPC drain to the Axis over the life of the bomber. You would need a lot of bombers to make it work and doing so would have to leave an opening somewhere.

I think the NO’s (National Objectives) make a US European bombing campaign harder than it looks. Will bombers be the only US investment to the Atlantic theater? If it is, then Italy has a pretty decent chance of achieving it’s control of Africa unless the UK wants to leave Russia head to head with Germany. And if the US devotes more than just bombers then a Japanese heavy push into the Pacific probably guarantees them their Pacific control NO.

Another thing nobody mentions is that, despite their low income, Italy is almost assuredly going to be investing in tech as well. Not at the levels of the US, UK, Japan or Germany, but a little. And that’s the bonus that the Axis carries with regards to defending against bombing. No matter which country gets Radar, Germany or Italy, it will be like both of them getting it. If Italy gets it you will see Italian AA guns defending German IC’s or vice versa.

See, this is exactly why I didn’t want to get into the whole “Hooray! AA50 is coming out 3 months from now. Wee, I’m so giddy!” thing. Because I knew that as soon we got a taste, people would be in the threads bitching about what they don’t like about it.

Now, I’m with everybody else. I think the guys at WOC are douchebags and not just because of A&A. But, am I the ONLY person who resigned himself to the fact that there was a chance that the real people (us, the gamers) would have to end up fixing it if it turned up not quite right. I mean there are historical precedents to look back on here to validate that feeling. Larry didn’t ask ME, so why should I expect him to give me what I want? We all know that we WILL be playing AA50 and we also know that we fixed Revised. In multiple variants, no less. Why should we care if it isn’t perfect? We’ll take what we get and then make it perfect.

@Flying:

With CAP you won’t be bombing Germany if you are bringing 2 fighters and 1 bomber vs 2 fighters and AA gun, that’s suicide. CAP is worst rule out there. I consider the AA gun as AA gun + fighters on patrol. 1/6 chance to shoot down a plane is quite high already.

Make 1 round of dogfighting (all fighters hit on a 1 or hit on a 1-2) followed by 1 round of AA vs. surviving bombers.  Would be better than fighters not attacking at all.

Or make any fighter in the territory raise one AA fire’s punch by 1 on a one-to-one basis like artillery supporting inf.

Bombing in the game is substantially more destructive than it was realistically, so defense also needs to be more powerful.  The “1/6 chance to kill a bomber is high” argument doesn’t really work.

I think AA50 needs some kind of interaction with defending fighters when SBR is performed. I don’t see why people ways "it works in AAE and AAP but not in AA50.

I think that the SBR should follow a modified dogfight of escorts rolling 1 and defending fighter interceptors rolling 2 ( rather than AAE 2 and 3 respectively) this wont chew up the planes so much and make the SBR less impervious. SBR rules and bomber cost of 12-13 IPC is just too huge to NOT have something to counter other than that silly AA gun rolling a 2 or less.

Also, the Mechanized infantry technology seems like a real cheesy idea to avoid making a dedicated piece for the new game. Mechanized infantry is not really a technology. The game should have a piece 2/2 moves 2 and cost 4, like a filler between infantry and tanks. The numbers work out by playtesting because frankly most of the new pieces and the new values i have seen before and know well.

I would replace Mech inf tech with something else…perhaps heavy tanks…who knows.

Also, i was wondering if its possible for a graph to be made to index SBR attacks and repair so you can immediately know what you have left to buy.

Now for some questions:

The damage to Factories is carried over from turn to turn correct?

The damage for Germany for its starting factory would be limited to 20 total IPC, since they have one factory in Germany and Germany is worth 10 IPC… is this correct?

Its confusing to me with the example of 35 IPC used earlier because in england case i think they have just one factory in england ( worth 8 IPC), which can be bombed for 16 total IPC and the same with Japan ( 16 total to be bombed by SBR)

Lastly, If you kreighund have the rules can you post the technologies so we can have a look?

funny you just posted some of what i just posted… :-D

The “1/6 chance to kill a bomber is high” argument doesn’t really work.

I think something needs to be done, while realistically 1 in 6 thing is bogus, and its not 1 in 6 because you bring in say 3 planes and its 50% which is 5 times the ACTUAL number of what was shot down by AA.

BUT i totally think SOMETHING has to be done…so i leave alone the AA OOB rules this time, and instead work the balance from the other direction like you intimated. I would bring back the dogfight but at a reduced value.

Bombers don’t just pass over drop ordinance and the defender just keeps its planes sitting on the airstrip. Its just ridiculous how they left that out. Its like the defender does not get to shoot back.

@Imperious:

The damage to Factories is carried over from turn to turn correct?

The damage remains until it’s repaired.

@Imperious:

The damage for Germany for its starting factory would be limited to 20 total IPC, since they have one factory in Germany and Germany is worth 10 IPC… is this correct?

The damage can never exceed 20 at any given time.

@Imperious:

Lastly, If you kreighund have the rules can you post the technologies so we can have a look?

I’ll release them slowly over the next few weeks.  Most of the ones posted at the beginning of this thread are correct, but some aren’t.  It might be fun to try to guess which is which.  :-)

It might be fun to try to guess which is which.

oh come on now. thats not fair.

Please dont take too long.

OK another question:

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs 6

so what is her total?

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs all 8

so what is her total?

@Imperious:

OK another question:

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs 6

so what is her total?

“Germany’s IC in Germany takes 8 damage” would be better wording.  To answer your question: Germany has 29 IPCs.

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs all 8

so what is her total?

27 IPCs

If those are the correct answers than i understand it. I also don’t see the point is avoiding the payment of SBR damage, due largely to the fact that if you don’t repair all the damage, it carries forward, which in a continuing SBR allied bombing campaign is catastrophic to German ability to field armies.

I understand its like a incremental repair and your deferring the charge to be put on future turns, but like getting increasingly larger loans on a home to cover the mortgage payment you cant afford to pay.

The analogy is correct considering the SBR thing will be coming every turn ( like the mortgage) and that not repairing leads to greater hardship latter ( larger expenditure of capital to cover debt service)

Well, think of this…Germany’s complex is hit for 5 damage.  Assume that they can produce all the units they want without restraints due to the 5 production damage.  Now, with the 5 IPCs you can either (for simplicity) buy a tank or pay off the damage.  You buy the tank.  If you are hit for 5 damage again next turn, you now decide to payoff all 10 damage for 10 IPCs.  You now have all the damage paid off, and bought a tank in the 1st of the 2 rounds.

If you instead chose to pay off the 5 damage in the 1st round, you only have to pay off 5 damage in the second round.  And because you have 5 more IPCs to spend in the 2nd round than you did in the first example (where you paid off all 10 in your 2nd round), you can buy a tank.  In this example, you have also paid off all the damage, but bought a tank in the 2nd of the 2 rounds.

To me, the advantage is clearly in the 1st option, deferring the payment as long as possible.  In the first example, the tank can be 2 spaces farther on its way to battle than in the second example.  Aside from that the end result is the same, all the damage was paid off.  This works the same way even in circumstances with large amounts of bombing damage.

ok i see it. yes right.

With bombers at 12 and subs at 6, as the US player, I will likely buy one bomber and two subs for use in the Pacific, and buy a tech roll.  Once I get it, I roll on the Air/Naval chart. The likelihood is 4 out of 6 that I will get a useful tech, as information is now available.  Heavy Bombers and Long-Range Aircraft boost bomber ability, Shipyards and Super Subs boost my shipbuilding, including subs (making 2 subs cost the same as one fighter), while Super Subs make my subs more lethal against the Japanese Navy.  With transports no longer being able to be used as fodder, and having no defenses, so continually requiring escorts, I am not going to worry about a Strategic Bombing Campaign against Japan, but concentrate on killing Japanese transports and their escorts.  Kill Japan first becomes a lot easier.  I would not complain even with Jets, as that boosts my defense in China once I can get fighters there.  Assuming that the best tech for the US is Heavy Bomber is focusing too much on one thing.  Shipyards in conjunction with Super Subs is likely just as deadly to Japan as Heavy Bombers.

As for a Strategic Bombiing Campaign against Germany, if Germany builds a second Industrial Center, I would shift from attacking the IC directly, to using bombers to kill as many German units as possible every turn.  Now, if the British use a tech roll on the Air/Naval Chart, their best are Heavy Bomber, Jets, And Rockets.  Rockets, in conjunction with bombers, given the new SBR rules will be very effective at reducing Germany’s output without a second IC.  Long-Range Aircraft help in getting planes to the Mid-East, and Shipyards buys cheaper escorts for use on the German subs.  With the cheaper bombers, Britain should be able to devote one bomber to killing U-boats in conjunction with the British destroyers.  The tech that does not help Britain that much is Super Subs.  However, a steady Rocket barrage from the UK, given the new damage rules of ICs, could be just as effective as having the Heavy Bomber tech.  One Rocket and one bomber on a SBR have the same effects as the Heavy Bomber tech.  With damage accumulating, the German player will need to keep repairing the German IC.

@Craig:

@squirecam:

Personally, I’d rather things get fixed. So if a new LHTR is needed, so be it.

Besides, with all due respect, playtest groups were not going to find/fix everything. Once the game got out to the public, there would be tweaks needed based upon things playtesters never saw. There was always going to be a need for LHTR AAAv. It just will be “bigger” now. :-D

But what makes me mad are the areas where we did catch things, fix them, and now they have been undone!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

That is what I am talking about.  We fixed these issues- these rules issues- and things were working fine.

Yes, there were going to be things that the general playing public were going to find that no amount of playtesting by a small group was going to uncover, BUT I understood and accepted that.

Those things were going to be typos and/or small mistakes.  Or it was going to be a strategy based on the new setup/map/units combo that only a large amount of game play was going to uncover.

Unfortunately, it will probably degenerate into the need for some form of unofficial change or clarification.  Something that didn’t need to happen if they hadn’t screwed up in the first place.  And this will have to happen because they will not change there stance.

Craig

Some things in LHTR were undone, but others were not.  There were a lot of LHTR clarifications that did make it into Anniversary, so progress was made.  IMHO, it was unrealistic to expect the process of this game to go much differently than Revised.  The fact that LHTR was never accepted by AH as official was an indicator of that.

However, the fact that some of the LHTR changes remain is an indicator that our voices are being heard, at least to an extent.  The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site.  There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance.  Larry really does listen.

@Krieghund:

The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site.  There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance.  Larry really does listen.

Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site.  There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance.  Larry really does listen.

Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)

The problem is that Larry Harris listen but AH does not listen Harris, for what I have understood.
:-(